Global Diplomacy: An Introduction to Theory and Practice

By Thierry Balzacq

This volume brings together different approaches to diplomacy both as an institution and a practice. The authors examine diplomacy from their own backgrounds and through sociological traditions, which shape the study of international relations (IR) in Francophone countries. The volume’s global character articulates the Francophone intellectual concerns with a variety of scholarships on diplomacy, providing a first contact with this subfield of IR for students and practitioners.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Release date: Nov 8, 2019
• ISBN: 9783030287863

Book preview

© The Author(s) 2020

T. Balzacq et al. (eds.)Global DiplomacyThe Sciences Po Series in International Relations and Political Economyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28786-3_1

1. Introduction: History and Theories of Diplomacy

Thierry Balzacq¹  , Frédéric Charillon²   and Frédéric Ramel¹  

(1)

Sciences Po, Paris, France

(2)

University of Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France

Thierry Balzacq (Corresponding author)

Email: [e-mail]

Frédéric Charillon

Frédéric Ramel

Email: [e-mail]

What is diplomacy? The term covers considerable territory, but the key element is that it deals with international relations, broadly understood. In the Encyclopédie Larousse, for example, there are at least three meanings attached to the word diplomacy. First, diplomacy refers to the action and (the) manner of representing one’s country to a foreign nation and in international negotiations. Second, diplomacy is concerned with the external policy of a country, of a government. Finally, diplomacy is the branch of political science which concerns international relations. Therefore, it refers to at least three distinct realities: It is, simultaneously, a particular activity, a sector of state intervention, and a subspecialty of political science. Yet, within public service, the word may also serve to designate the career devoted to representing a country or the group of individuals who fulfill this undertaking.

Be that as it may, the ordinary use of the term remains unaccounted for. In general, the term diplomacy is often employed metaphorically, to refer to the tact and skill considered to define diplomatic action. Here, the term applies to all behavior or attitudes which correspond to this way of conducting oneself. Nonetheless, we will see below that the etymology of the concept reveals an entirely different story.

This textbook aims to define the particular field of diplomacy, starting with an examination of its nature and its functions. Thus, we will attach a contextual importance to different usages of the term, with content varying from one chapter to another. Accordingly, the objective of this introduction is to further clarify the concept of diplomacy, notably through explaining its connection to foreign policy.

This introduction proceeds in three parts. First, it traces the historical evolution of practices defined as diplomatic, taking issue with conventional accounts that single out Greece as the starting point. Our interpretation breaks with the most common approach in the literature (Berridge 2015), while reflecting the latest work done on the historical archives of diplomacy. In the second section, we explore debates about the theorization of diplomacy. Finally, the introduction proposes a fresh examination of the concept of diplomacy, to further explain both its nature and content. We hope such a counterintuitive approach will encourage new engagement with both the theory and practice of diplomacy today.

The Diplomatic Phenomenon in History

When texts on diplomacy seek to explain how it has evolved, they often begin with an omission: The norms, institutions, and instruments of diplomacy (protocol, notes and treaties, etc.) existed well before the Greek or Florentine periods that laid claim to them. Indeed, for almost two thousand years, that is between approximately 2500 and 609 B.C.,¹ the Middle East experienced exchanges similar in form to what is currently understood as diplomacy. Consequently, recent research on the history of diplomacy argues for a recognition of the diversity of its origins, in fact, of its decentering (Sharlach 2005). Cohen (2001), for example, suggests that there is a grand tradition in diplomacy that runs from the Mesopotamian period to the Roman epoch, through ancient Greece. In support of this thesis, Cohen stresses that from one historical perspective to another—with more or less significant variations—one may detect a series of ideas, norms, practices, and roles structuring the relationships between sometimes sovereign political entities, which still characterize diplomatic interactions today (Weinfeld 1993). In this reorientation of the history of diplomacy, classical and modern forms (still referred to as European by some) are preceded by a Middle Eastern touch, which in many respects renews the interpretation previously made of the other two forms. What follows will explain exactly how this occurs.

Diplomacy in the ancient Middle East is associated with a collection of norms, instruments, and institutions settled over time, thanks, in particular, to the practices of various successive dynasties in what now constitutes the territory of Iraq. Some documents dating from 2500 B.C. refer to the existence of kings’ envoys or messengers. Here, there is often mention of cuneiform diplomacy, insofar as the medium of communication is writing of this type developed in lower Mesopotamia, between 3400 and 3200 B.C. Besides a shared system of royal envoys, a language (Sumerian) and writing, cuneiform diplomacy includes an entire complex network of relations between kings linked by fraternity, the obligations of reciprocity, an embryonic form of protocol, the bases of an ethical system of negotiation, the exchange of gifts, and the rudiments of a bureaucracy responsible for processing and attributing assignments to envoys, of managing correspondence and of archiving documents (Cohen 2017, 22). Nonetheless, during this period, there was no diplomatic immunity, as such. However, envoys were protected against any form of attack on their person.

We owe our knowledge of many diplomatic practices from the ancient Middle East to clay tablets discovered at various sites. Two collections constitute the core of the material. The first, the Royal Archives of Mari (1700–1670 B.C.), was brought to light in Syria. In these tablets, the norms, instruments, and organizations responsible for diplomacy are developed. For example, envoys are henceforth differentiated as a function of their rank. Some are mere messengers, while others can negotiate and sign treaties in the name of their sovereign, which is, in fact, the current equivalent of plenipotentiary ambassadors. The latter are recognized in the texts as representatives of kings and, thus, receive the honors due to the sovereigns whose agents they are. Some of these new diplomats reside in a foreign location for many years. It seems that this period also saw the emergence of letters of accreditation and what came to be known—much later—as diplomatic passports.

The Amarna Archives, discovered in Egypt, provide additional clues.² The cornerstone of the system of Amarna is the emissary, endowed with exceptional diplomatic talents. In the name of their sovereigns, emissaries negotiated various types of agreements, marriages, and commercial treaties. At the same time, the archives confirm the interweaving of ritual and diplomacy, reciprocity as a basic principle of interactions between kingdoms, the significant role of protocol in the conduct of diplomatic affairs, and the crucial place of the exchange of gifts in both the construction and consolidation of diplomatic ties.

Classical diplomacy brings us back to the legacy of ancient Greece ³ as much as to that of the Roman Republic (509–27 B.C.) and the Roman Empire (27 B.C.–641 A.D., corresponding to the fall of the Roman Empire of the East). The extraordinary interconnection of the two worlds, as the works of Paul Veyne (2005) have demonstrated, should not overshadow the singular identity of the diplomatic processes of each space. Greek diplomacy of the time was, in some ways, essentially turned inward since its main preoccupation was to regulate interactions among city-states. There, diplomacy was not considered an important domain for government action. Decisions concerning the relationships with other entities were taken in public. Moreover, contrary to the Mesopotamian period, diplomacy in classical Greece was especially distinguished by minimal, in fact, nonexistent, protocol. The diplomats sent to Athens were not protected, and it was not uncommon for them to be executed.

That being said, ancient Greece, especially during the Hellenistic period, contributed to the development or reinforcement of certain diplomatic institutions. For example, in the seventh century B.C., Sparta invented the multilateral alliance mechanism as a security guarantee and to preserve the common peace. The diplomatic phenomenon is distinguished by two other institutions of this period. On the one hand, there is the recourse to arbitration as a means of settling differences. On the other hand, there is the reliance upon the proxenos, a citizen of the state in which he resides, responsible for protecting the interests of citizens of the state whose representative he is. However, the proxenos remains loyal to the state to which he belongs and not to the one whose interests he has agreed to defend. Finally, it seems that the title of proxenos was often inherited (Gerolymatos 1986).

Despite its rudimentary practices, diplomacy in ancient Greece provided some elements that inspired the Roman model, notably the usage of arbitration in the resolution of conflicts. Yet the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire are rarely associated with diplomacy. Their military prowess attracts more attention. Thus, Harold Nicolson (1950, 14) claims that the Romans developed no notable diplomatic methods, due to their tendency to prefer military coercion to the detriment of negotiation on the basis of principles of reciprocity. However, such a position does not stand up to scrutiny. If Rome became an empire, it owed this to its diplomatic skill, as much as to its military genius. Brian Campbell (2001) effectively demonstrates that, in its conquest of Italy, Rome, which until that point had been merely one small city-state among others in Latium, sometimes employed war, sometimes negotiation, to expand its network of allies. And, he asks, how can one explain the unshakeable loyalty of numerous allies of Rome during Hannibal’s invasion (218–203 B.C.), if it was not due to the Roman Republic’s power of persuasion and seduction?

Diplomacy in the Republic or the Empire was, first and foremost, a matter of personal contacts. Its formalization remained fragile (Eilers 2009). Nevertheless, we can observe that the signing of treaties, such as the declaration of war, followed a rigorously defined ritual, overseen by the college of fetials (the college of priests of ancient Rome). This ritual served the purpose of ensuring that acts were accomplished in accordance with religious requirements. In this sense, diplomacy in ancient Rome fell under the authority and protection of the gods (Saulnier 1980). The envoys of the Roman state, responsible to the Senate, had a limited right of initiative in their transactions with foreign entities. The Senate could, in effect, unravel everything which had been discussed or even finalized with foreign states.

The principal functions of Roman diplomacy recorded in the literature are: the establishment of peace; the sharing of the spoils of war; the signing of treaties; the resolution of commercial differences; and the regulation of commerce. Such a variety of exchanges required the use of a common language. Yet, there was no established diplomatic language, even if Greek and, to a certain extent, Latin, were commonly used in diplomacy. Consequently, in most interactions with foreigners, the Roman authorities relied upon interpreters.

Modern diplomacy is a direct product of the Italian Renaissance (Fletcher 2015). Yet we now know that the Italian Renaissance did not invent diplomacy. Nonetheless, it did introduce a number of innovations, regarding its actors on the one hand, and with respect to the conduct of diplomacy on the other hand.

First, regarding its actors, modern diplomacy did not break radically with the past, but prolonged and stabilized the advances of the medieval period. The figure of the ambassador (ambactiare—to go on a mission), for example, appears in the thirteenth century in Italy, but it carries within it the traces of two other types of envoys already mandated by different political entities to communicate with each other: that of the nuncio (nuncius) and that of the procurator. The nuncio acts as a living letter (Queller 1984, 201), in that he recites the content of the message, orally confided by the sender, to the recipient. He cannot stray from the strictly defined terms of the mandate which he receives. Acting at the behest of another, the nuncio is an envoy with absolutely no margin of maneuver. The distance between the entities engaged in interaction made the task of the nuncios very demanding, since all new information liable to alter the original mandate had to be confirmed by the authority he/she represented. As a result, this necessitated quite frequent trips back and forth and a considerable loss of time, especially in situations requiring a rapid decision. From the Middle Ages, therefore, a new form of representative emerged. These were the procurators.

Contrary to the nuncio, the procurator enjoyed the right of initiative. Not only could he negotiate the terms of an agreement with a foreign sovereign, but he was also entitled to conclude such an accord in the name of the sovereign who appointed him. The procurator’s field of activity extended to private matters. For example, Frédéric II’s counselor, Peter della Vigna, represented the emperor at his wedding to Isabella of England in 1235. Therefore, it was with Peter della Vigna, and not with Frédéric II, that Isabella exchanged vows.

As for the use of the title of ambassador, it is difficult to define, at least at the outset. Indeed, any person responsible for a public mission for peaceful purposes was called ambassador (Maulde La Clavière 1892–1893). Thus, even ordinary citizens could have their ambassadors vis-à-vis other citizens. For our purposes, however, the most important aspect concerns the circumstances surrounding the emergence of the figure of resident ambassador, between the midpoint of the Middle Ages and the fifteenth century. The frequency and density of exchanges, on the one hand, and the duration of missions, on the other hand, convinced sovereigns that foreign residence was the most effective, and surely the most economical way to allow the ambassador to conduct his mission. In addition, being resident allowed the ambassador to withdraw from permanent attention and, thus, from analysis of absolutely everything he did, which was often the case for ad hoc envoys. The principal responsibilities bestowed upon the ambassador during this period involved the collection and transmission of information to his sovereign and the function of ceremonial representation, for example on the occasion of a wedding, birth, or death. It is worth noting, however, that the Venetian ambassador did not always have the right of initiative. Indeed, he was often summoned to note the terms of the discussion and the intentions of the other party and to transmit them to Venice. He could take no decision on his own without prior formal approval from Venice. In other words, it seems that in practice, and depending on the circumstances, the resident ambassador sometimes resembled a nuncio and at other times a procurator.

In terms of material organization, modern diplomacy has favored the spread of new institutions and novel practices. Among the notable advances of this period, we may highlight four. First, while until the sixteenth century it was enough to swear to a treaty for said pledge to be recognized as valid, from the seventeenth century on, formal ratification (signature and affixing a seal to the document) became the norm. Second, we observe a generalization of credentials (i.e., of a document signed by the recognized sovereign who bestows it on the new ambassador so that he may transmit it to the head of state or government of the host country).⁴ Third, the organization of great multilateral conferences became a favored mechanism for resolving the most urgent international problems (e.g., the Congress of Cateau-Cambresis in 1559, the Congress of Westphalia 1643–1648, the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the Congress of Paris in 1856, and the Congress of Berlin in 1878). Finally, chancelleries capable of conducting diplomatic relations in a continuous fashion arose, and the system of immunities became accepted.

During this period, France, which had become one of the dominant European powers, contributed to professionalizing diplomatic practices, to such an extent that one could speak of a French diplomatic system, alongside an Italian system inherited from Venice. In 1626, Cardinal Armand de Richelieu established a Minister of Foreign Affairs to attempt to articulate the different policies of the kingdom with respect to foreign powers. Subsequently, French became the lingua franca of diplomatic exchanges. The culmination of this codification of practices was the Convention of Vienna on diplomatic relations, signed August 18, 1961.⁵

Theoretical Reflections on Diplomacy

Long considered a nebulous field devoid of content, regarding foreign policy in particular, the study of diplomacy has suffered from limited theoretical awareness (Sharp 1999). This insufficient theorization has also been due to the anti-theoretical attitude of a major segment of one of the intended target audiences for diplomatic studies: the diplomats themselves. Yet, in both cases, at its heart, it seems that the problem stems from a lack of agreement over the meaning and functions of theory. In our view, theory must enable one to analyze and sometimes describe with further information, or to explain what diplomacy entails and how it operates, both in the long-term and on a daily basis. Theory can also give rise to a more reflexive ambition on the part of diplomats, through spurring them to question their own practices, in comparing them to those of others, in space and time. While modesty, charm, and tact must characterize the diplomat (Nicolson 1950, 126), the ability to take a critical look back at his or her words and deeds should also be a required characteristic. Theory is an instrument, perhaps the most effective, which can foster this. In more disciplinary terms, the theorization of diplomacy may serve to better explain the relationships between diplomatic studies and the other branches of knowledge in international relations, particularly foreign policy and also, to a certain extent, defense and the economy.

In the literature, the current debates stem from a shared difficulty: the dramatic increase in the number of activities and actors characterized or judged to be diplomatic raises questions about boundaries or what is typical of the phenomenon. The debate is not new but, since the 1980s, has tended to structure the choices made by some concerning the center of gravity of theorization in diplomatic studies. For example, one group, in which we find Nicolson and Berridge, situates diplomacy in the arena of interstate security relationships. In this sense, diplomacy is essentially, perhaps exclusively, concerned with high politics. The other group takes the opposite stance, postulating that diplomacy is much more extensive than the advocates of a high politics approach would have us believe. It covers not only questions of security, but also, at a minimum, commercial and cultural issues (see Langhorne 2004; Lee and Hudson 2004; Hocking 1999). And, for that reason, the number of actors involved is much greater than those who fall within the framework of traditional diplomacy dominated by official state diplomats.

Diplomatic activity has skyrocketed, and the number of actors associated with it has also been consistently growing (Kerr and Wiseman 2017, 1–18). Yet this does not resolve the question of diplomatic theory. Certainly, we may examine the role of these new actors and the manner in which they transform or fail to transform the field or the perception of diplomatic activity. Similarly, as in the third part of this book, we may painstakingly analyze the different sectors of diplomacy (economic, humanitarian, etc.). Yet the question of what constitutes diplomacy remains open.

To unpack the precise nature of diplomatic activity, which could serve to bolster theorization, a number of authors have offered suggestions, of varying degrees of relevance. Some propose to further draw out what constitutes the main activity of the diplomat. Research, for the most part, focuses on two functions: representation and negotiation. For example, echoing Richelieu, who defined diplomacy as permanent negotiation, William Zartman (2008) considers that negotiation is at the heart of the diplomat’s endeavor. In this sense, studying diplomacy amounts to studying the mechanisms of negotiation (Schelling 1966; Petiteville and Placidi-Frot 2013; Rosoux 2013, 795–821). In reality, the function of negotiation stems from a broader activity, namely that of communication. Indeed, when not seeking to find common ground among the parties, diplomats are working to prevent disagreements from turning into conflicts, or avoiding such disagreements at an earlier stage. When not undermined by propaganda, one of the tasks assigned to public diplomacy is precisely to improve relations between actors in the international system by creating conditions conducive to communicating everyone’s intentions. For Paul Sharp (1999), in addition to communication, we should add representation to understand what distinguishes diplomacy from other practices in the international system, since the diplomat acts and speaks in the name of a sovereign, whose interests and identity he/she represents. In this context, diplomacy is a tool for adjustment, since actors with different interests and identities come to construct a mutual understanding through it—one could say intersubjectively. Thus, diplomacy is characterized by alienation, the managing of otherness (Der Derian 1987, 96. Compare with Constantinou 1996).

Meanwhile, other scholars have attempted to grasp the daily routine of the diplomat and its supposed or real effects on the structuring of the world order. For example, Geoffrey Wiseman (2015), Vincent Pouliot, and Jérémie Cornut (2015) suggest that we focus on the practices of actors in order to better trace how their activities allow us to understand certain contours of the international system.

In sum, the theorization of diplomacy oscillates between the quest for its essence and the study of micropractices, sometimes with a view to further generalization and sometimes to grasp the here and now, through a dense description, along the lines of Geertz, of what the diplomat does (Barber 2016; Lequesne 2017; Neumann 2012). However, none of these theoretical initiatives has yet led to a real characterization of what distinguishes diplomacy from other activities. Indeed, negotiating, communicating, and representing are functions that one currently encounters in other sectors of activity, both public and private. Thus, diplomacy finds itself confronted with the same risk as strategic studies several decades ago. Unfortunately, we are familiar with the outcome: a dilution and a loss of consistency in the concept of strategy, which became an empty signifier.

The Concept of Diplomacy

How do we escape this impasse? Perhaps through referring to the etymology of the concept of diplomacy (Leira 2016, 28–38).⁶ Up until this point, indeed, we have used this term in a transparent manner, transposing some practices to a term which did not exist in its current usage. We are not alone in employing this artifice. A great deal of extant research proceeds in this way, but the fault lies in being satisfied with it. And this is widespread. In this case, engaging in reflection on the distinctive contours of diplomacy could prove to be perilous.

The term diplomacy is of Greek origin, and its meaning is twofold. On the one hand, as a verb—diploo, it comes back to a double folding, and on the other hand, as a noun—diploma, throughout the Middle Ages, it designated official documents folded in a particular way which conferred on their bearer certain rights and privileges. During the Renaissance, diplomas were associated with papal acts. In particular, a diploma is a letter of papal nomination. These letters were written by a cleric who was called a diplomatarius. From the end of the seventeenth century, the methods necessary to verify the authenticity of these documents are brought under the term diplomatica. Moreover, it is in this sense that the word appeared for the first time in the Dictionnaire de l’Académie française in 1762.

During the same period, concomitantly, we witness an extension of the term diploma. Not only does it continue to refer to documents attributing privileges to certain individuals, but, through a series of associations cumbersome to disentangle, the term diploma also progressively comes to designate the collection of official documents and treaties concluded between various sovereigns. Thus, because this falls within the context of treaties between sovereign entities, the adjective derived from diploma, diplomatic, becomes associated with the activities of envoys of one sovereign in another sovereign’s court (Leira 2016). This explains the link between diplomatic activity, on the one hand, and peace, war, and alliances, on the other hand.

An evolution, technically similar to that of the term diploma, occurred around the notion of the diplomatic corps. While in the seventeenth century the diplomatic corps was analogous to the people’s body of law, from the middle of the eighteenth century it began to designate all of the ministers accredited in another court (Leira 2016, 31). Finally, the term diplomacy made its way into the 1798 edition of the Dictionnaire de l’Académie française and signified the Science of the relationships, of interests between powers. In Webster’s Dictionary of 1817, diplomacy is perceived in a broader sense since, henceforth, it covers the customs and rule of public ministries, the forms of negotiation; and the corps of ambassadors and envoys. By and large, this is the definition of diplomacy as it has come down to us. Overall, besides the conceptual variations characterized by the upheavals in etymology , we can stress that diplomacy falls into a distinct field of practice: that of war, peace, and alliances. In other words, this is the political domain. In that respect, everything that one could term new forms of diplomacy (humanitarian, cultural, or others) above all serves these original goals of diplomacy.

Yet what of its relationship to foreign policy? Certain institutional ambiguities offer little relief to those who would like to differentiate them. In the International Studies Association (ISA), there is, indeed, a specific section dedicated to the analysis of foreign policy, which is linked to the journal Foreign Policy Analysis. In addition, there is a section on diplomatic studies. This decoupling is surprising when we know how difficult it is to get an autonomous section recognized in the ISA. In reality, in our view, diplomacy and foreign policy evolve at distinct but complementary levels. Foreign policy is situated at a meta-level. It formulates objectives which diplomacy pursues. Certainly, diplomacy is based on means and instruments. Yet it is also about the form that interactions take. A poor ambassador can derail years of serene relations. Thus, diplomacy concerns instruments and practices through which not only states, but also actors support, coordinate, and achieve their identities, interests, and values.

About This Book’s Rationale and Contents

Diplomatic studies have recently witnessed a strong resurgence of interest, at both the academic and practical levels. The broadening of the diplomatic scene to include societal actors but also emerging powers cannot be the only explanatory factor. Other parameters must be taken into consideration. For example, consider how the following changes call into question the traditional perimeters and operation of diplomacy: the diversification of ranges of action in an environment characterized by concerns about image and reputation (branding); diplomacy’s resonance with anti-terrorism mechanisms; the pressure of budgetary constraints on public policies (compelling a redefinition of the conditions for diplomatic action); the rise of information and communication technologies associated with the sophistication of means of digital navigation; taking into account emotions and affect in order to make diplomatic activity more intelligible; the development of intergovernmental organizations, especially regional ones, which bring about the creation of new diplomatic spaces, including those of inter-organizational and inter-regional cooperation.

All sectors of diplomatic intervention (from trade and security to finance, culture, and the environment) are influenced by these reconfigurations. While the Anglophone market has seen the publication of a number of influential offerings, culminating in the Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy (2013), the Francophone market remains fragmented in terms of what is available. Thus, to our knowledge, this volume constitutes the first French textbook on diplomacy.

The question of the adaptation of diplomatic tools (classic or modern) permeates the entire work. While the diplomatic dimension in international relations is broached in a number of works, it is not the specific focus. Instead, existing works consider the profession of diplomat and, more rarely, the sociology of this occupation (Report to the Ministry, by Loriol, Piotet, and Delfolie, published by Hermann in 2013). Others touch on a particular aspect of diplomacy, for example negotiation (Petiteville and Placidi-Frot 2013). Nonetheless, most reference texts give considerable attention to diplomacy. In the Traité de relations internationales (Balzacq and Ramel 2013), for example, a number of facets of diplomacy are examined (diplomatic history, conflict analysis, international negotiation, public diplomacy, foreign policy, etc.). Be that as it may, whether they are more open, like the Handbooks and Treaties, or concentrated on a single theme, these texts often presuppose a working knowledge of international relations.

This book on diplomacy has a more precise goal, and all the chapters have an identical approach, presenting an Introduction to the study and practice of diplomacy. In simple terms, it provides an initial contact with diplomacy. Whether in English or French, most textbooks on diplomacy target advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students. On this count, Kerr and Wiseman’s book is a notable example (Kerr and Wiseman 2017). The present textbook has a more defined audience. It is particularly suitable for undergraduate university studies, but does not require any basic training in political science or international relations. It does, however, assume a healthy dose of intellectual curiosity and some general culture.

The textbook is divided into three sections. The first explores both the environments at the heart of which diplomacy is conceived and developed, and its various possible configurations, from bilateralism to multilateralism, including possible intermediate nuances (club and group diplomacy, paradiplomacy, etc.). In addition, it examines the various methods of supporting diplomacy, there too from the most classic (negotiation, rituals, and protocols) to the latest information and communication technologies. The second section concentrates more on the actors participating in diplomacy. It therefore covers not only state actors, but also sub- and supra-state actors. It confirms the way in which the twofold pressure of sub-national entities and of international and non-governmental organizations has radically transformed the task of state diplomats. Yet it substantiates this analysis with some original data. Here, for example, the role of legislatures is key to the extent that it raises the question of a fair balance between, on the one hand, discretion (or secrecy)—one of the traditional attributes of diplomacy—and, on the other hand, transparency, a requirement for certain new actors on the international stage. Finally, the third section examines various diplomatic sectors. The objective is not to compile an inventory of all possible incarnations of the diplomatic phenomenon. Instead, it is a matter of testing the hypothesis that diplomacy changes in nature in different sectors. Thus, in total, seven sectors are analyzed: the economy, culture, the environment, defense, the humanitarian field, entertainment, and expertise. In the conclusion, we discuss some difficulties facing contemporary diplomacy. The textbook suggests different ways to successfully overcome those challenges.

References

Balzacq, Thierry, Ramel, Frédéric (eds.), Traité de relations internationales, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, 2013.

Barber, Brian, What Diplomats Do: The Life and Work of Diplomats, Lanham (MD), Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.

Berridge, Geoffrey R., Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, New York (NY), Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Campbell, Brian, Diplomacy in the Roman World (c. 400 BC–AD 235), Diplomacy and Statecraft, 12 (1), 2001: 1–22.

Cheyre, Juan Emilio, Defence Diplomacy, in Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, Ramesh Thakur (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.

Cohen, Raymond, The Great Tradition: The Spread of Diplomacy in the Ancien World, Diplomacy and Statecraft, 1 (1), 2001: 23–38.

———, Diplomacy Through the Ages, in Pauline Kerr, Geoffrey Wiseman (eds.), Diplomacy in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices, New York (NY), Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 21–36.

Constantinou, Costas M., On the Way to Diplomacy, Minneapolis (MN), University of Minnesota Press, 1996.

Der Derian, James, Mediating Estrangement: A Theory of Diplomacy, Review of International Studies, 13 (2), 1987: 91–110.

Eilers, Claude, Diplomats and Diplomacy in the Roman World, Leiden and Boston, Brill, 2009.

Fletcher, Catherine, Diplomacy in Renaissance Rome: The Rise of the Resident Ambassador, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Gerolymatos, Andre, Espionage and Treason: A Study of the Proxeny in Political and Military Intelligence Gathering in Classical Greece, Amsterdam, Brill, 1986.

Grandpierre, Véronique, Histoire de la Mésopotamie, Paris, Gallimard, 2010.

Hocking, Brian, Foreign Ministries: Change and Adaptation, New York (NY), Palgrave Macmillan, 1999.

Kerr, Pauline, Wiseman, Geoffrey, Introduction, in Pauline Kerr, Geoffrey Wiseman (eds.), Diplomacy in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices, New York (NY), Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 1–18.

Langhorne, Richard, The Regulation of Diplomatic Practice: The Beginnings to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Practice (1961), in Christer Jönsson, Richard Langhorne (eds.), Diplomacy, vol. II, History of Diplomacy, London, Sage, 2004, pp. 315–333.

Lee, Donna, Hudson, David, The Old and New Significance of Political Economy in Diplomacy, Review of International Studies, 30 (3), 2004: 343–360.

Leira, Halvard, A Conceptual History of Diplomacy, in Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr, Paul Sharp (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Diplomacy, London, Sage, 2016, pp. 28–38.

Lequesne, Christian, Ethnographie du Quai d’Orsay. Les pratiques des diplomates français, Paris, CNRS Éditions, 2017.

Loriol, Françoise, Piotet, Marc, Delfolie, David, Splendeurs et misères du travail des diplomates, Paris, Hermann, 2013.

Maulde la Clavière, M., La Diplomatie au temps de Machiavel, 3 vols., Paris, Ernest Leroux, 1892–1893.

Neumann, Iver B., At Home with the Diplomats: Inside a European Foreign Ministry, Ithaca (NY), Cornell University Press, 2012.

Nicolson, Harold, Diplomacy, London, Thornton Butterworth, 1950.

Petiteville, Franck, Placidi-Frot, Delphine (eds.), Négociations internationales, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, 2013.

Pouliot, Vincent, Cornut, Jérémie, Practice Theory and the Study of Diplomacy: A Research Agenda, Cooperation and Conflict, 50 (3), 2015: 297–315.

Queller, Donald E., Dictionary of the Middle Ages, New York (NY), Scribner, 1984.

Rosoux, Valérie, Négociation internationale, in Thierry Balzacq, Frédéric Ramel (eds.), Traité de relations internationales, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, 2013, pp. 795–821.

Roux, Georges, La Mésopotamie, Paris, Seuil, 1995.

Saulnier, Christine, Le rôle des prêtres fétiaux et l’application du ius fetiale à Rome, Revue historique du droit français et étranger, 58 (2), 1980: 171–199.

Schelling, Thomas C., Arms and Influence, New Haven (CT), Yale University Press, 1966.

Satow, Ernest M., A Guide to Diplomatic Practice, London, Longmans, Green & Co, 1922.

Sharlach, T. M., Diplomacy and the Rituals of Politics at the Ur III Court, Journal of Cuneiform Politics, 57, 2005: 17–29.

Sharp, Paul, Diplomatic Theory of International Relations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Veyne, Paul, L’Empire gréco-romain, Paris, Seuil, 2005.

Weinfeld, Moshe, Covenant Making in Anatolia and Mesopotamia, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University, 22, 1993, pp. 135–139.

Wiseman, Geoffrey, Diplomatic Practices at the United Nations, Cooperation and Conflict, 50 (3), 2015: 316–333.

Zartman, William I., Negotiation and Conflict Management: Essays in Theory and Practice, London, Routledge, 2008.

Footnotes

1

The period broadly covers a major part of the history of Mesopotamia, in particular, that which encompasses the period of the city-states of Lower Mesopotamia up until the fall of the Assyrian Empire in 609 B.C. For more details, please see Grandpierre (2010) and Roux (1995), among others.

2

The age of El Amarna is often associated with the period from 1460 to 1220 B.C.

3

In particular, the classical (the end of the fifth to the fourth century B.C.) and the Hellenistic periods (fourth to the first century B.C.).

4

The acceptance of the credentials allowing an ambassador to exercise his functions in the host country. If one considers the etymology of the term credentials (from the Latin credentia—confidence or belief), it may be noted furthermore that the objective of the credentials is to allow the ambassador to gain credence in the host country, that is, to be believed and treated as a person worthy of confidence.

5

Complemented by the Convention of Vienna on consular relations in 1963.

6

See also Satow (1922).

Part IPlaces and Vectors of Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century

© The Author(s) 2020

T. Balzacq et al. (eds.)Global DiplomacyThe Sciences Po Series in International Relations and Political Economyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28786-3_2

2. Bilateral Relations

Alice Pannier¹  

(1)

Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, USA

Alice Pannier

Bilateral relations are the founding element of international relations, or, as Thomas Gomart has suggested,